Did Jesus Exist?

[♦ ficino ♦]

Blood, thanks for this illuminating summary of Westermann's approach and for situating it w/in traditions of German biblical scholarship.

 

Does Westermann hold a sort of two-truth scheme: that the "tradition/s" in Genesis aren't historically true in the strict sense, but that they are spiritually or theologically true? If he does hold such a scheme, does he pull out propositions about spirituality or theology or morals and claim that they are true and that belief in their truth is justified by appeal to something?

 

If he does the above, he reaches the point at which I cease to care for any other than political reasons.

[qadeshet]

Hello guys. Time for a pause to reflect?

 

Honestly, isn't Blood doing a fantastic job debunking Religion? Many thanks! And thanks to ficino for his keen observation. There is one more "so called" piece of evidence from Josephus we need to discuss. I intentionally left it out of my opening; because recently it has been pretty thoroughly debunked. This is the referrence to the death of James, brother of "the one called Christ". If Blood whould like to go into a little more detail, then that would be great. I'll just give what I'm pretty sure is what happened.  Some Scribe, making a copy, inserted a "scribal note" 'Brother of the one called Christ?' in the margins. A later scribe copied it into the text. What Josephus was saying is that a High Priest named James was killed and his brother, Jesus bar Damneus, was named high Priest. Technically this was probably not intenional forgery, simply an interpolation. Cheers!

 

The Emerald Tablet uses a completely different Symbol System than do Myths. See below:

 

If you wish, check out the Image Link.

[qadeshet]

Hey friends.

 

I've been here 11 years but I was still missing a piece of the puzzle. And what really s***ks is when it's the First Piece. The puzzle just won't come together. I really want to thank Neil Godrey over at Vridar for this one. There are many pieces to this Puzzle, but without knowing the vital importance of determining Genre, you might wind up treating Literature, even Great Literature, as history. We are showing that all the Worlds Religous Texts are Myths. The Worlds great Literature are almost always , at least in part, representive of the Great Mythic Cycle. Most of us know that Star Wars and Harry Potter are based, in part, on these old Myths. Isn't even Tarzan of the Apes an obvious example? Ironic, isn't it, that the last piece of the Puzzle, was actually the First?

 

Skeptics of Christianity, and other Religions, have been trying, maybe since before Celsus, to defuse the power of Religion. But now we have the Internet. And they can't, at the moment, burn us at the stake. This is important because Bible Scholars, Theologians, and others have got the Genre wrong! But I also need to show to them that myths are not just fiction. Myths are Powerful expressions of the Unconscious, the Doorway to Perception. They are a part of our Evolutionary Legacy.

 

Sometimes the Last really does come First.

[Blood]

 

Does Westermann hold a sort of two-truth scheme: that the "tradition/s" in Genesis aren't historically true in the strict sense, but that they are spiritually or theologically true? If he does hold such a scheme, does he pull out propositions about spirituality or theology or morals and claim that they are true and that belief in their truth is justified by appeal to something?

 

No, Westermann is a serious scholar, so there is virtually no attempt at the apologetics you describe. That simply isn't accepted in German Biblical scholarship. He isn't really concerned with whether something was "true" either historically or in some vague "spiritual" sense. He simply assumes a "tradition history" or folklore that eventuates in a text. But he never explains why someone couldn't have simply written Genesis without any "tradition history." 

[♦ ficino ♦]

Tx. Glad to hear that about Westermann.

 

Your last question makes me think of posing to guys like Westermann the question, whether someone couldn't have written the Iliad without any "tradition history." I think the inheritors of the mentality of Friedrich August Wolf, pioneer of modern philology, would find it hard to imagine a single person as inventing the Iliad.

[Blood]

There is one more "so called" piece of evidence from Josephus we need to discuss. I intentionally left it out of my opening; because recently it has been pretty thoroughly debunked. This is the referrence to the death of James, brother of "the one called Christ". If Blood would like to go into a little more detail, then that would be great. I'll just give what I'm pretty sure is what happened.  Some Scribe, making a copy, inserted a "scribal note" 'Brother of the one called Christ?' in the margins. A later scribe copied it into the text. What Josephus was saying is that a High Priest named James was killed and his brother, Jesus bar Damneus, was named high Priest. Technically this was probably not intenional forgery, simply an interpolation. Cheers!

 

I might get into Josephus later. I haven't really examined the arguments. What I'd be more interested in is how Bible scholars interact with all the mythical and legendary material in Josephus's books. I've already mentioned that Josephus thought that "the historic Daniel" actually wrote the second part of The Book of Daniel, but this assertion is given zero credibility by scholars today. So they are apparently quite content to dismiss Josephus's witness when it suits them. 

 

The thrust of my research is not so much the texts themselves, but the arbitrary and inconsistent ways that today's Bible scholars react to them. 

[Blood]

Your last question makes me think of posing to guys like Westermann the question, whether someone couldn't have written the Iliad without any "tradition history." I think the inheritors of the mentality of Friedrich August Wolf, pioneer of modern philology, would find it hard to imagine a single person as inventing the Iliad.

 

F.A. Wolf definitely influenced Biblical  Studies through his analysis of Homer. The concept of multiple authors compiling "tradition history" into written epic was adapted by Bible scholars in Germany for the Torah or Pentateuch. The Document Hypothesis (mistranslated as "Documentary" Hypothesis) already existed in basic form at that time, but Wolf's influence gave it a new life and credibility. 

 

John Van Seters wrote a recent book on this topic: "The Edited Bible." 

 

My opinion is that very little if any "tradition history" informed the authors of Genesis and the Iliad. 

[qadeshet]

Tx. Glad to hear that about Westermann.

 

Your last question makes me think of posing to guys like Westermann the question, whether someone couldn't have written the Iliad without any "tradition history." I think the inheritors of the mentality of Friedrich August Wolf, pioneer of modern philology, would find it hard to imagine a single person as inventing the Iliad.

 

Hi ficino, before you go to that much trouble; it is very likely that "Homer" is no more real than Paul or Mark. A group of scribes probably wrote the Epic. The only tradition is earlier Myths. Cheers!

 

 

There is one more "so called" piece of evidence from Josephus we need to discuss. I intentionally left it out of my opening; because recently it has been pretty thoroughly debunked. This is the referrence to the death of James, brother of "the one called Christ". If Blood would like to go into a little more detail, then that would be great. I'll just give what I'm pretty sure is what happened.  Some Scribe, making a copy, inserted a "scribal note" 'Brother of the one called Christ?' in the margins. A later scribe copied it into the text. What Josephus was saying is that a High Priest named James was killed and his brother, Jesus bar Damneus, was named high Priest. Technically this was probably not intenional forgery, simply an interpolation. Cheers!

 

I might get into Josephus later. I haven't really examined the arguments. What I'd be more interested in is how Bible scholars interact with all the mythical and legendary material in Josephus's books. I've already mentioned that Josephus thought that "the historic Daniel" actually wrote the second part of The Book of Daniel, but this assertion is given zero credibility by scholars today. So they are apparently quite content to dismiss Josephus's witness when it suits them. 

 

The thrust of my research is not so much the texts themselves, but the arbitrary and inconsistent ways that today's Bible scholars react to them. 

 

 

I have. So don't worry about it. And remember, since Josephus was a devout Jew, he likely believed that stuff. His book "Antiquities of the Jews" isn't real History. In fact Jewish History, as believed in and described in the Bible is manufactured History. Pretty darn sure that the Jews were the Hyksos, expelled by Ahmose ii. Look at the description of the eruption of Mt Thera and compare it to the Exodus. And Joshua and the Israelites circling Jerico? The pasage of the Sun over many years.

 

Thanks again for your fine work. I really think we're doing something good here. Cheers!

[qadeshet]

Actually ficino, do you think that eliminating the oral history likelihood might help? Might be a really great idea. Thanks.

[qadeshet]

Hello again, Members and Guests.

 

We have some very good questions on other Threads that we are going to consider here. A few examples...plus my own.

 

The Dead Sea Scrolls, The Nag Hammmadi Library, The Dance of the Seven Veils, the Exodus, Abraham, Psalms, Song of Solomon, the "Prophets", John the Baptist, and so on. Does this sound like an epic undertaking? A voyage worthy of Heroes? Maybe I should have said this earlier...we are going to attempt what the Jesus Seminar failed to accomplish; or end up like most Heroes do. We have something that Bible Scholars and The Jesus Seminar missed...the correct Genre! Do you want a look ahead...a sneak peak?

 

Ishtar's Descent to the Underworld...the original Savior.

 

Cheers!

[Blood]

Genesis 37-50: A Continental Commentary by Claus Westermann (1982; English translation, 2002)

 

Did Joseph exist? Westermann says yes, but gives us no real reason to believe so, other than the vague and by now hackneyed concept of "tradition history" supposedly carrying on Joseph's name for hundreds of years before the alphabet is invented so someone can write it down (without alterations!). There is a rub here, however, in that scholars prior to Westermann had argued that the "Joseph Story" was written as a carefully-plotted novella or novel. That would imply fictitious characters. Westermann is having none of it. 

"The distinguishing marks of fiction and the individual, however, do not hold for the Joseph story. At least it is not fiction inasmuch as it tells of people who actually lived ... one could say that the Joseph story bears a certain resemblance to the family novel. But it is so far removed from this and the modern novel that neither of these terms should be used to describe it." (pg. 25)

 

He goes on to say that the Joseph story is "a work of art of the highest order; but the writer is not narrating something he himself invented ..."

 

You might recall that Carey Moore reached the exact opposite conclusion with The Book of Judith: because the book was so carefully plotted, it could not possibly be based on "oral history" or "tradition history," and therefore the most probable conclusion is that it was the invention of a creative artist. But of course, Judith is an expendable figure in "Israelite" history and Joseph is not. So Joseph prima facie existed. 

 

In my opinion, there's no difference between the Joseph story and the Judith story. Both stories are best explained as the invention of creative artists, not the settled residue of hundreds of years of "tradition history." 

[qadeshet]

Great post Blood! And what about Joseph and the Coat of Many Colors? What does that tell us? And don't we know someone else with that name? Just how much did the NT writers borrow from the OT? I don't think that there is any difference in the Genre of the two stories. The NT writers retold the old tales.

 

From the Coat of Many Colors to a Simple Garment: The Unmaking of Joseph

 

Know Thyself

[qadeshet]

This is for you, Blood. I'm sure it'll get lost in all the Posts. We have to look for clues everywhere.

 

Here's where need Joseph Campbell. The Coat of Many Colors was his Shaman's Robe.

 

Cheers!

[qadeshet]

Greetings!

 

The Gateway to Perception?

Aladins' Cave?

The Great Oricle of Delphi?

The Academy?

The Argo?

Andromeda?

Heracles?

Appolonius of Tyana?

Socrates?

 

All of these and many more dwell within the deepest reaches of Ourselves. This is our Evolutionary Legacy. How do we open this vast resevoir of the Collective Unconscious? With two words.

 

Know Thyself!

 

Do you remember the words Alladin used to open his Treasure Cave? You now know how to open it.

 

See the Thread started by SkepticalDaniel The God Is Human

 

Know Thyself

 

By Plato

Plato employs the maxim 'Know Thyself' extensively by having the character of Socrates use it to motivate his dialogues. Plato makes it clear that Socrates is referring to a long-established wisdom. Benjamin Jowett's index to his translation of the Dialogues of Plato lists six dialogues which discuss or explore the saying of Delphi: 'know thyself.' These dialogues (and the Stephanus numbers indexing the pages where these discussions begin) are Charmides (164D), Protagoras (343B), Phaedrus (229E), Philebus (48C), Laws (II.923A), Alcibiades I (124A, 129A, 132C).^[20]

In Plato's Charmides, Critias refers to the maxim consistently with the view expressed in the Suda, with Critias saying, "for they imagined that 'Know Thyself!' was a piece of advice which the god gave and not his salutation of the worshippers at their first coming in."^[21]In modern words Critias gives his opinion that 'Know Thyself!' was an admonition to those entering the sacred temple to remember or know their place and Critias says, " 'know thyself!' and 'be temperate!' are the same. Notice that when the words of Critias are written, 'thyself' and 'temperate' are punctuated with exclamation marks in the English translations, as if they were commands.^[22] In the balance of the Charmides, Plato has Socrates lead a longer inquiry as to how we may gain knowledge of ourselves.

 

And:

 

Know Thyself

 

Personal intelligence opens a privileged window into our own minds as well as into the most byzantine motivations of others. Personality psychologist John D. Mayer, who codeveloped the theory of emotional intelligence, unpacks an idea that has profound ramifications for how we see ourselves.

 

People who display such an ability understand themselves and know who they are. They evaluate others more accurately and therefore make more allowances for others' foibles; they are better at acknowledging their own limitations, too. Those who are talented at this reasoning power make better guesses about how people are likely to behave. And they have a generally good idea about how their acquaintances, colleagues, and friends perceive them—they know their own reputation. At still deeper levels, these individuals recognize that their perceptions of the people around them might require revision at times.

 

Trust me, my friends, organized Religion does not want us to have this Knowledge! It has been known for thousands of years.

 

Know Thyself!

 

The aphorism has been attributed to at least the following ancient Greek sages:

• Bias of Priene^[6]
• Chilon of Sparta^[7]
• Cleobulus of Lindus^[8]
• Heraclitus^[9]
• Myson of Chenae^[10]
• Periander^[11]
• Pittacus of Mytilene^[12]
• Pythagoras^{[citation needed]}
• Socrates^[13]
• Solon of Athens^[14]
• Thales of Miletus^[15]

Diogenes Laërtius attributes it to Thales (Lives I.40), but also notes that Antisthenes in his Successions of Philosophers attributes it to Phemonoe, a mythical Greek poetess, though admitting that it was appropriated by Chilon. In a discussion of moderation and self-awareness, the Roman poet Juvenal quotes the phrase in Greek and states that the precept descended e caelo (from heaven) (Satires 11.27). The 10th-century Byzantine encyclopedia the Suda, recognized Chilon^[16] and Thales^[17] as the sources of the maxim "Know Thyself."

 

Why should we continue to submit ourselves to greedy Churches? Or prostrate ourselves before the Power of men? Don't let Religion keep you in chains. We are not sheep!

 

Know Thyself!

 

You know we still have a lot of work to do. Right? Cheers!

[qadeshet]

Gomer says hey...oh well, you're probably too young. Blood has been great at debunking the literal interpretation. There's not much left on the Historical Jesus question. What little "evidence' there if minimal. There's actually more evidence for Cicero's slave than there is for Jesus. Damn. Any Book that starts out "In the beginning" is clearly Myth. I think that the easiest thing for is to do is show that these apparently rediculous stories are really Epic Myth. I'm going to do Salome next. Is she really the Villain? And what about John the Baptist? Did he exist. So, why doesn't that strange Book of Job fit the Pattern? And is Salome the same character as Isabel...just retold? We will find out.  And what about Baalam's Talking Ass? Probably not Historical.

 

Philosophy is Science, not Religion. Have I said anything about Belief? You know how I think about that. Those words-'Know Thyself'-need no Belief. Try them and see. See if they work. Or not. Now that this is on the Web, all I need to do is work on comparing the various Myths. I need to pick up a new copy of Campbell's "The power of Myth" video. It can be rented, but I want a new copy. The Book is still a problem, but Campbell may help me. I's not enough to show that they're Myths, I also need to show what they mean. Believe nothing. Rember, it's all in the Mind.

 

Know Thyself!

 

Psychology Today

 

Procedural memory contains instructions on carrying out actions physically—to tie one's shoelaces or drive a car. As the child of a coal mine supervisor in Coalwood, West Virginia, Hickam was a natural target for sons of disgruntled mine workers; he had to learn how to fight, how to protect himself, and when to run. This procedural knowledge is part of our doing, active self.

 

Marcus Tullius Tiro

 

Marcus Tullius Tiro (died c. 4 BC) was first a slave, then a freedman of Cicero. He is frequently mentioned in Cicero's letters. After Cicero's death he published his former master's collected works. He also wrote a considerable number of books himself, and possibly invented an early form of shorthand.

[qadeshet]

Hello everyone, this is for Margee; about her avatar Eve. We know that no naked man and woman ate some bad fruit, and got kicked out of Eden. So who was Adam, and who were the Elohim who said "Now that the Man has become one of Us, knowing Good and Evil, let Us cast him from the Garden before he partakes from the Tree of Immortality(Just from memory). We talked of the Tree of Life Earlier, a map of the Unconscious. So who do think Adam was in the Myth? Remember, in Chapter one: The Elohim created Man in their image, male and female created they them.

 

The Elohim were the seven Planetary gods of the Babylonians. And the Tower of Babel had seven tiers, one for each of the gods. The Tower of Babel was a temple. Think about it.

 

Watchers, Elohim, and Egregors

 

Elohim

The term used often in the Old Testament (and other texts outside of it as in the Muslim Allah = Elah) for the Lord. This is an incorrect usage, as the term is plural and means ‘Shining Ones’.

We can see this plurality in the text from Genesis 1:26: ‘And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.’ And again in Genesis 6:2 ‘The sons of god saw the daughters of men that they were fair..’ This term ‘sons of god’ is literally ‘sons of gods’ and comes from ben ha-elohim, ‘sons of the shining ones’.

The term in fact seems to have spread around the globe with man in his very language.

• The Sumerian
  EL
  means simply
  bright
  or
  shining

• the Old Irish
  Aillil
  means shining

• Old Cornish
  EL
  means shining

• Elf
  means shining - hence
  Elves
  as tall/mysterious angelic beings

• Inca
  Illa
  is bright or to shine

• Babylonian
  Ellu
  is to shine,

...to name just a few that have sprung up worldwide from the same Sumerian source.

Baal, the deity often spoken of as the ‘Lord’ in the Bible, is also seen as a shining one in the Old Testament and is called the Owner. At that time there were many ‘Owners’ or shining ones, in fact there was one for each village. These are the governors of men.

To the Hebrews the Elohim were nature divinities from ancient Sumerian times. According to General Albert Pike, the famous Masonic Historian, in Morals and Dogma, the Elohim were the ‘host of heaven’, ascending and descending to pass messages to and from god or the leader (Yahweh.) The host of heaven were of course the stars in the night sky humanized.

 

Know Thyself!

Be Temperate!

 

Adam and Eve

[qadeshet]

Know Yourself. Members and Guests, friends and family,

 

What is the difference between Science and Religion? Religion tells us we have to believe without evidence, do whatever they tell us, and give them lots of our time and Dinero. If something works, it's called Science. We never needed Religion except to control the masses. All we really need to do is to know our selves. And how to you contact your Self? Know Yourself! There is nothing mysterious or Religious about those two words. Science works, whether you believe it or not! Start your next conversation, especially someone that your don't know, with "Know Yourself".

 

Remember the 23rd Psalm? I'm not going to even quote from this degrading story, even though beautifully written. Damn guys, Religion wants us to be Sheep, not people! Besides, it's your Church that wants obedient sheeple and slaves. What if everyone knew that they don't even need Religion? Remember John Lennon's great song; "Imagine"? I'm going to go ahead and post the lirics, because I want this too.

 

Imagine lyrics

 

"Imagine"

 

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today... Aha-ah...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace... You...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world... You...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

 

I want to join John Lennon; ...and no Religion too. Please...

Know Yourself.

 

Thank you Mr Lennon!

[Blood]

This is drifting away from the central topic. My purpose in bringing up all the Old Testament stuff was to show the different ways in which Bible scholars (who are not historians) react to texts that are essentially the same as the New Testament. 

 

This helps to show why, when someone says, "The vast majority of Bible scholars believe Jesus existed," we should be highly skeptical of the credibility of those making the claim. The opinions of Bible scholars should not, in fact, even be considered for this issue, since they work in a theological field that demands affirmation of the historical existence of the god-man, either explicitly (as part of their employment contract) or implicitly. Western culture rests on the childish, asinine assumption that our myths are real, while everyone else's are made up, and this assumption cannot be questioned. Everything else can, but not this.  

 

The opinions that matter are people in the fields of folklore and mythology, as well as ancient history. But the latter would also be heavily biased toward the existence of the god-man, not because they believe it, but because they don't want the hassle of being labeled a "fringe" scholar by theologians (aka Bible scholars). Religion poisons everything, and one very effective poison it has in its medicine bag is slander.

[Blood]

BBC: Forty percent of people in England do not believe Jesus was a real person, a Church of England survey suggests.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34686993?SThisFB

[qadeshet]

Know Yourself! Know Yourself! Know Yourself!

 

This is drifting away from the central topic. My purpose in bringing up all the Old Testament stuff was to show the different ways in which Bible scholars (who are not historians) react to texts that are essentially the same as the New Testament. 

 

This helps to show why, when someone says, "The vast majority of Bible scholars believe Jesus existed," we should be highly skeptical of the credibility of those making the claim. The opinions of Bible scholars should not, in fact, even be considered for this issue, since they work in a theological field that demands affirmation of the historical existence of the god-man, either explicitly (as part of their employment contract) or implicitly. Western culture rests on the childish, asinine assumption that our myths are real, while everyone else's are made up, and this assumption cannot be questioned. Everything else can, but not this.  

 

The opinions that matter are people in the fields of folklore and mythology, as well as ancient history. But the latter would also be heavily biased toward the existence of the god-man, not because they believe it, but because they don't want the hassle of being labeled a "fringe" scholar by theologians (aka Bible scholars). Religion poisons everything, and one very effective poison it has in its medicine bag is slander.

 

Thanks Blood. Know Yourself!

 

Friend, you could not have said it better. They've got the Genre wrong, whether accidentally or deliberately. I'm beginning to wonder! The Genre of all Religious texts is Sacred Myth. They are designed to guard the Truth. not to reveal it. Do you remember the words used by Morpheus to awaken Neo? Morpheus said "Know Thyself".

 

In the Film...

 

In the film "The Matrix," Neo goes to see the Oracle and in her kitchen above the door is a two-word phrase which the Oracle suggests translates to 'know thyself.' What was this phrase and why is it, therefore, incorrect?

 

The old Religious texts are allegories, not history. That's what we(mostly you at the moment) you are doing. SkepticalDaniel posted a very important Post. It's about the God being Human. I'll have to find it. We need to show that all Religious texts are mis-labled-these Bible Scholars have got the Genre wrong!

 

"This is drifting away from the central topic." Blood, we are going to cover Human History since Ancient Sumer! What you're doing is exactly on topic.

 

Cheers, Brother Blood.

[Blood]

I've quoted and alluded to William H.C. Propp, Professor of Ancient History and Judaic Studies, University of California at San Diego, several times recently. He's a Bible scholar who wrote a 1,500-page commentary on the Book of Exodus (Anchor Bible 2004-2006), but, unusually for the field, he also has a master's degree in Ancient History, and that's his primary field of expertise.

 

Now, the confusion of the quite distinct and separate categories of Ancient History and Theology is one that scholars within the field of Biblical studies make all the time, but the opposite is not true -- scholars of Ancient History do not consider themselves Theologians (even though religious beliefs and practices are part of their chosen study). That is because scholars of Bible need to convince themselves that they are actually studying "history" when they study the Bible, and second, if they teach at a secular university, they would be embarrassed to be known as "theologians." 

 

What is notable about Propp is that he does not confuse the two categories, and in fact draws a sharp boundary between them. And what you find when a degreed Ancient Historian writes about the Bible is a very, very different experience than what a Theologian (even if he is "secular") writes about the Bible. The entire field of vision, the attitude, the weighing of evidence, all are far more critically-minded than that of a Theologian. Propp admires the Bible as a literary artifact. He doesn't worship it -- no real historian would. He has no need to validate some vague sense of "tradition history." 

 

All of this is highly relevant to the study of the New Testament, and the historical Jesus, because most of what Propp says about the "Old" Testament and Torah is just as applicable to the New. I doubt that Propp would agree that Jesus was a myth. But I also doubt that he would use the consensus of Theologians to argue for the validity of anything. 

 

 

"Unlike almost all biblical scholars, who operate in departments of religious studies, or religion, I am a professor of history. [His emphasis.] … in history, the evidentiary bar is considerably higher than it is in religion." – William H.C. Propp, speech given at the UCSD EXODUS CONFERENCE,"Out of Egypt: Israel's Exodus Between Text and Memory, History and Imagination" May 31 - June 1, 2013 [video on the Internet]

 

"For me, the Torah makes a most unconvincing [historical] witness on seven counts. First, it talks too much, and indeed catches itself in contradiction (...) Second, the Torah is just too good a storyteller. I have shown how closely the story of Israel's journeys from Canaan to Egypt and back again resembles a heroic 'fairy tale' ... The Torah's formulaic plotline and high entertainment value inspire my immediate distrust. (...) Third, the Torah is fuzzy on critical details. (...) Fourth, I expect to see a witness's face in a courtroom. But in the Torah, there is no 'I,' neither is there really a 'you'. (...) Fifth, although tradition ascribes the books of Genesis through Deuteronomy to Moses, who would have experienced the events of the Exodus directly, modern research has shown the extreme likelihood that the Torah enshrines the words of four authors who lived centuries later. (...) Sixth, the Torah is not an impartial witness ... presenting an accurate account of events is not the Torah's sole, probably not even its main, concern. (...) Seventh, the Torah describes unnatural occurrences so bizarre that, were they the testimony of a modern writer, I would unhesitatingly consider him/her to be schizophrenic or 'under the influence.' Because of the peculiar history of biblical research as a subdiscipline of theology, it is embarrassingly necessary to insist that the supernatural has no more place in academic scholarship than it has in the courtroom." - William H.C. Propp, Exodus 19-40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (2006: Anchor Bible, Doubleday), pg. 736-737

 

“Given the gaps in our knowledge, the complexity of historical processes and our inability to conduct proper experiments, we should aim for multiple, parallel hypotheses, as complex as the events they purport to explain. We can and must take into account the 95 percent of information hidden from our view, the sea bottom connecting solitary islands of data. The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction." William H.C. Propp, Exodus 19-40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (2006: Anchor Bible, Doubleday), pg. 793

[qadeshet]

12 members, 53 guests, 1 anonymous users

 

Know Yourself!

 

Blood, what a great Post! I know the Symbolism of the Sacred Myths, so I'll be in that area for a while. I'm working on the Eden Myth right now. All this goes back to Ancient Sumer. Any Book that starts out "In The Beginning" is telling us the Genre. Convincing Bible Scholars, except Dr Ehrman won't be easy. Dr Thompson changed the OT Scholarship Paradigm...and it cost him his career. Again, loved your Post. Cheers! Here's a hint...Adam symbolically represents Mankind.

[pratt]

sorry to ask this,,,,,

 

is it NOT OT to validate the need of a messiah jesus,,,,,

 

so if they think or consider OT as not factual or mainly myth, why would they believe a messiah jesus?

[qadeshet]

5 members, 48 guests, 0 anonymous users

 

Know Yourself!

 

Pratt, The NT is a retelling of the OT. Guess what, The Matrix Movie is also a retelling of the same classic Myth, going all the way back to Ancient Sumer! NT Bible Scholars are 50 years behind OT Scholarship. They are guarding this from Christians. They love the money, wealth, and power.

 

Thanks for asking, Pratt. Cheers!

 

The Matrix 101

 

Matrix [uPDATED] in the dictionary refers to "a situation or surrounding substance within which something else originates, develops, or is contained. The womb." Additionally, the concept of the Matrix as an illusion or a 'construct' that humans are unaware of resembles the idea of Samsara in Buddhism and Hinduism. Samsara teaches that the world we consider 'real' is actually a projection of our own desires. From Morpheus Neo learns that how he'd perceived himself in the Matrix was simply a "the mental projection of your digital self." The "real" sensory world "is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."

 

sorry to ask this,,,,,

is it NOT OT to validate the need of a messiah jesus,,,,,

so if they think or consider OT as not factual or mainly myth, why would they believe a messiah jesus?

[Blood]

To return to some of my initial questions asked on Page 1 of this thread:

 

Was it necessary to be an "historian" to be a Biblical writer?

 

No. Biblical writers are not "historians" in either the ancient or modern sense of the word, though some real historical figures and epochs appear in their work, and they often try to make it appear that their stories are historical. Scholars such as Propp, Westermann, Collins, et al. would agree. This is, however, constantly obscured by other scholars (theologians), as well as the general public. The influence of fundamentalism in America is so profound that the idea that the Bible is "history" (in the modern sense) is presented as the default position in the media, even in ostensible "science" magazines like National Geographic. 

 

What were the motivations and purposes of the Biblical writers?

 

Primarily theological, as the scholars we've examined admit. That's why I keep stressing that the study of the Bible is properly classified as the study of Theology, not History. What they are actually studying are the religious beliefs of a small sect of people in the Ancient Near East. Quite by accident, this small sectarian religion became adopted by every tribe in Europe, in part because they mistakenly thought that the religion's scriptures documented the history of the world. Though Western culture now knows this to be gross error, it still persists in pretending that the Bible is somehow a history book. 

 

Was it necessary for Biblical writers to have 'sources' or 'oral history' to write their stories? Or could they simply write something from their imaginations?

 

Most do believe that "oral history" forms the basis for most of the stories that were written down, but admit that the supposed basis for those stories is unrecoverable. The less theologically important a particular book or figure is, the greater likelihood that a scholar will attribute the book or figure to a single creative author. Thus, Judith, Ruth and Tobit can be admitted to be mythic figures within "fictional," literary stories invented by an author, but Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph must be real people whose memories were carried over hundreds of years in a complex oral process.